Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th of September, 1987, as contained in Annexure-3, by which the Jamabandi of the petitioner has been cancelled. He has also challenged the consequential order dated 14th of October, 1987, as contained in Annexure-4. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has tried to point out from the pleading made by the petitioner that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and thereby jamabandi was rightly made in favour of the petitioner. 3. It will be evident from the decision of this Court in the case of Sitaram Chonhey and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors reported in 1993 (2) BLJR 942 : 1993 (2) PLJR page 255 that creation of jamabandi or cancellation of such jamabandi, neither creates any right and title in favour of a person nor it takes away the right and title in favour of a person, if any, over a piece of land. The Court held as follows: ...25. By reason of an entry in Register II, a person merely becomes entitled to deposit rent. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to how cancellation of Jamabandi would amount to cancellation of settlement, as it is well known that neither payment of rent creates title nor non-payment extinguishes any.... ...26. An administrative order of mutation passed by the Revenue Authorities is not and cannot be a decision on the question of title. Such a decision can only be taken by a Civil Court in a duly constituted civil suit. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the effect of the impugned order would be cancellation of settlement by itself resulting in extinguishment of the settlement purported to have been made in favour of the petitioners by the ex-landlord.... 4. In the aforesaid background as the impugned order in any case will not decide the right and title between the parties, this Court will not interfere with the same under its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observation.